Also, HoH:S, pg. 61
Oh dear. HoH:S p.61 categorizes sensory species. Stating
Iconic species are carried in light, and are interpreted by the eye.
lists their defining properties.
Magic can move iconic species without light. But in the mundane world this goes against their nature. Magic can make you hear iconic species or make your common sense (A&A p.31 The Human Mind) gather their input, but in the mundane world you are cut off from them if you are blind.
In the mundane world, iconic species cannot pass through a grog, but magic can make them or carry them around him.
That makes the most sense. Does the T-Vision stops at the suppressed generator, or does it detect the wall-behind generator?
I am under the impression that the far species are not suppressed and travel along, but are drowned out by the near species. Is that description from Ars Mag or from some MA readings I've done?
Thanks, @ErikT .
No, HoH:S says no such thing. That's why I asked about elsewhere.
Please don't say things like "oh dear" to me when you are the one essentially confusing a conditional statement and its converse.
If you think this, then would you say HoH:S p.61 says sound cannot be transmitted through water, right? If not, you're being inconsistent, as they're written the same way. But sound can be transmitted through water, as is easily known and as the sentence allows. By the same structure, the sentence for iconic species allows them to be carried by other things.
And magic could not possibly allow them to pass through the person? Only around or recreate them?
2 Likes
That is probably a good way of looking at it, though I'll have to think further. Something to consider is CrIm to make an illusion can result in not seeing things behind the illusion, and this would be a way of solving that.
No. Read again more carefully:
In the mundane world, iconic species cannot pass through a grog, but magic can make them or carry them around him.
What does the bolded phrase in the context say? Yep, "magic can make them pass through a grog". It could of course also carry them around him.
So what is the purpose of your post above?
1 Like
Seriously??? You've been absolutely denying that PeIm magic could allow the species from behind to pass through, insisting PeIm must either move those species around or recreate them. So I posted this. You now disagree with what you said above, since there is now a third option you agree with. The purpose of my post was to show that there might be more options than the two you limited it to above, which you now agree with, and thus the purpose of my post has been demonstrated to be effective.
3 Likes
Your English reading can be improved. Read my last post again.
I quickly checked. Apparently classical and medieval scholars did not consider sound passing through water or solids - though they of course knew about the resonance of solids. We have (Sounds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)):
When speaking about voice in his treatise De Anima (On the Soul), Aristotle wrote that sound is a âcertain movement of airâ (De Anima II.8 420b12) but, even though he claimed that sound and motion are tightly connected, he did not seem to identify them (Pasnau 2000: 32). The natural scientists of the seventeenth century refined the intuition that sound is a movement of air into the wave theory of sounds, which appeared to be an obvious competitor for the quality or sensation (proximal) view. Galileo registered that
sounds are made and heard by us whenâŚthe airâŚis ruffledâŚand moves certain cartilages of a tympanum in our ear.âŚhigh tones are produced by frequent waves and low tones by sparse ones. (1623 [1957: 276])
No sound propagation through water known in the middle ages, though, sorry. The authors of HoH:S did their reseach.
So you're going to guarantee for me that no one ever in the middle ages or antiquity had their head below water and heard anything? I figured this out on my own as a little child and noticed that I could hear a sound differently that way as well. I wasn't some super-genius at 6ish years old. I find it pretty hard to believe this was not known.
As for Aristotle
Aristotle claims that the air (or water) between a sounding object and a perceiver is âmovedâ (kineisthai) when that object sounds. ( https://philarchive.org/archive/JOHAOS )
Aristotle (384â322 BC) was among the first to note that sound could be heard in water as well as in air. ( The Discovery of Underwater Acoustics: Pre-1800s â Discovery of Sound in the Sea )
Edit: Here is what Aristotle actually wrote, translated into English, in Chapter 8 of De Anima
Further, we must remark that sound is heard both in air and in water, though less distinctly in the latter.
In De Anima II 8 (from here) we have a single mention of hearing in water indeed.
Further, we must remark that sound is heard both in air and in water, though less distinctly in the latter. Yet neither air nor water is the principal cause of sound.
And then the book goes on about how sound propagates in the air.
What is required for the production of sound is an impact of two solids against one another and against the air. ...
And stays with air for the rest of the chapter, which really does Aristotle's acoustics. Water never is brought up again. That is still an argument for omitting it in ArM5 p.61 - but also an example how Aristotle is often more clever than many of his modern and medieval readers.
In simpler words:
PeIm can destroy the target's opacity (to species), making it transparent (again, to species).
1 Like
Well, there are many non-Hermetic feats that Hermetic magic can't duplicate.
HMRE, in the Folk Witch chapter, notes that "direct" Intellego on something protected by MR is magically resisted, but Second Sight (e.g. to perceive an invisible ghost) is not. Removing the need to penetrate for Intellego is suggested as a Major Breakthrough from the integration of Second Sight. So it might possibly invalidate callen's argument:
This would also mean, that the target does not cast a shadow any more, right?
But see ArM5 p.146 Perdo Imaginem Guidelines:
Note also that shadows are due to the physical body blocking the light.
Destroying somethingâs shadow is thus Creo Ignem, or possibly Rego Ignem, not Perdo Imaginem.
So it appears that this will not work.
We also know, that with (p.146) Veil of Invisibility:
The target becomes completely undetectable to normal sight, regardless of what he does, but still casts a shadow.
So the target would not become translucent by PeIm Invisibility. VoI still needs to move or recreate iconic species from the other side of the target, though - and these species are not carried in light through the target.
PeIm will just make the target transparent to species, not to light.
No, they will not be carried by light through the target - they will obviously have to be carried by magic through it.
3 Likes
Yep, that's it. No destruction of opacity hence.
It is also quite irrelevant ,whether the species are carried through or around the target.
Opacity as regards species will be destroyed. Not opacity regarding light.
If you care to make such a distinction.